This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Climate, energy & environment
The bill would give people and groups 36 months to ask for a federal environment approval decision to be reconsidered, instead of leaving that request open-ended.
An 11-year-old EPBCThe federal environment law this bill would amend. On this page, it is the law that sets the current rules for reconsidering approval decisions. approval for Macquarie HarbourThe Tasmanian site used as the main example in the bill materials. It is where a salmon farming approval was later reopened, prompting the push for time limits. salmon farming was reopened in November 2023 after requests from three activist groups, exposing that reconsideration requests had no time limit and unclear limits on who could make them. The bill sets a 36-month deadline for most reconsideration requests and then lets only the relevant state or territory ministerA state or territory environment minister who, under the bill, would get a special role after 36 months. On this page, that minister can seek reconsideration only for projects in their own jurisdiction. seek a rethink for projects in that jurisdiction.
The EPBC ActThe federal environment law this bill would amend. On this page, it is the law that sets the current rules for reconsidering approval decisions. already allowed reconsideration requests with no time limit and little restriction on who could ask, and a 2012 Macquarie HarbourThe Tasmanian site used as the main example in the bill materials. It is where a salmon farming approval was later reopened, prompting the push for time limits. salmon farming approval was reopened in November 2023 after requests from three activist groups, exposing how long-settled approvals could be revisited. Senator Richard Colbeck introduced the bill in October 2024 to impose a 36-month limit and reserve later requests to the relevant state or territory ministerA state or territory environment minister who, under the bill, would get a special role after 36 months. On this page, that minister can seek reconsideration only for projects in their own jurisdiction., but the proposal was still only at second reading debateThe stage in Parliament where members debate the main purpose of a bill. On this page, it shows the bill was discussed but did not pass. in February 2025 and lapsed when Parliament ended in July 2025.
Critics said the bill would make it harder to revisit flawed federal environment approvals by cutting off community and expert reconsideration after 36 months, which they warned could weaken safeguards for waterways, endangered species and biodiversity. That case was raised mainly by Labor and the Greens in Senate debate, while supporters argued the change was about stopping open-ended uncertainty rather than changing the policy goal of environmental protection.
Senator Richard Colbeck introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from Liberal Party, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
Did not pass
1 recorded vote before the bill stopped proceeding
Time before failure
286 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
The bill would give people and groups 36 months to ask for a federal environment approval decision to be reconsidered, instead of leaving that request open-ended.
After 36 months, only the relevant state or territory ministerA state or territory environment minister who, under the bill, would get a special role after 36 months. On this page, that minister can seek reconsideration only for projects in their own jurisdiction. could ask for a rethink of a federal environment approval, which would give approval holders more certainty.
A state or territory ministerA state or territory environment minister who, under the bill, would get a special role after 36 months. On this page, that minister can seek reconsideration only for projects in their own jurisdiction. could only seek reconsideration for a project located solely in that same state or territory, not for projects in another jurisdiction.
The bill would not change reconsideration requests already lodged before it started, so existing requests would keep being handled under the old rules.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations of Decisions) Bill 2024 seeks to set clear time limits and cut-off periods for decisions to be reconsidered as well as clear limits as to who is permitted to do so by law. This Bill would introduce a timeframe of 36 months from the day of the decision for a request for reconsideration of the decision to be made by a person who is not relevant minister of a state or self-governing territory. After the 36-month period has passed, the authority to request reconsideration of the decision becomes the exclusive purview of a relevant minister from the state or territory in which the environmental approval applies.Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) explanatory memorandum
In 2012, it was determined, under section 75 and 77A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 that the proposed Marine Farming Expansion, Macquarie Harbour, Tasmania (EPBC 2012/6406) was not a controlled action if undertaken in a particular manner. In November of 2023, 11 years after this approval was given, the current Minister for the Environment and Water opened the reconsideration of this approval for consultation, at the behest of three activist groups. The precedent created by this action casts doubt over the certainty of every approval granted under the EPBC Act. To create greater certainty for those in receipt of approvals, the Bill limits the timeframe to request the reconsideration of an approval granted under the EPBC Act after a period of 36 months from the date of the approval. After this period has elapsed, only the minister of the relevant state or self-governing territory may request the reconsideration of an approval granted under the EBPC Act.Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) explanatory memorandum
8. This item would insert a new subsection to provide that the ability of State and self-governing Territory Ministers is limited to requesting reconsiderations of decisions on actions that are proposed solely in their jurisdiction. For example, a Tasmanian Minister could not ask the Minister to reconsider an approval granted for an action to be taken solely in Queensland.Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) explanatory memorandum
This item would provide that requests made before the commencement of the item are not retroactively affected by the amendments proposed by this Bill.Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) explanatory memorandum
Context
The EPBC ActThe federal environment law this bill would amend. On this page, it is the law that sets the current rules for reconsidering approval decisions. already allowed reconsideration requests with no time limit and little restriction on who could ask, and a 2012 Macquarie HarbourThe Tasmanian site used as the main example in the bill materials. It is where a salmon farming approval was later reopened, prompting the push for time limits. salmon farming approval was reopened in November 2023 after requests from three activist groups, exposing how long-settled approvals could be revisited. Senator Richard Colbeck introduced the bill in October 2024 to impose a 36-month limit and reserve later requests to the relevant state or territory ministerA state or territory environment minister who, under the bill, would get a special role after 36 months. On this page, that minister can seek reconsideration only for projects in their own jurisdiction., but the proposal was still only at second reading debateThe stage in Parliament where members debate the main purpose of a bill. On this page, it shows the bill was discussed but did not pass. in February 2025 and lapsed when Parliament ended in July 2025.
Macquarie HarbourThe Tasmanian site used as the main example in the bill materials. It is where a salmon farming approval was later reopened, prompting the push for time limits. salmon farming wins federal approval
An EPBCThe federal environment law this bill would amend. On this page, it is the law that sets the current rules for reconsidering approval decisions. decision found the proposed Marine Farming Expansion in Macquarie HarbourThe Tasmanian site used as the main example in the bill materials. It is where a salmon farming approval was later reopened, prompting the push for time limits. was not a controlled actionA project or activity that needs federal environmental approval under the EPBC Act. In the Macquarie Harbour example, the project was found not to be a controlled action if done in a particular way. if carried out in a particular manner.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) explanatory memorandum ↗Minister reopens the Macquarie HarbourThe Tasmanian site used as the main example in the bill materials. It is where a salmon farming approval was later reopened, prompting the push for time limits. approval
The explanatory memorandumThe document that explains what a bill does and why it is being introduced. This page uses it to describe the policy problem and the clause-by-clause changes. says the Environment Minister opened reconsideration of the 2012 approval after requests from three activist groups, spotlighting that EPBCThe federal environment law this bill would amend. On this page, it is the law that sets the current rules for reconsidering approval decisions. reconsideration requests had no time limit.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) explanatory memorandum ↗Bill introduced to cap late reconsideration requests
Senator Colbeck introduced the bill to set a 36-month deadline for most reconsideration requests and leave later requests to the relevant state or territory ministerA state or territory environment minister who, under the bill, would get a special role after 36 months. On this page, that minister can seek reconsideration only for projects in their own jurisdiction..
Hansard ↗Senate resumes debate on the bill
Second reading debateThe stage in Parliament where members debate the main purpose of a bill. On this page, it shows the bill was discussed but did not pass. showed the bill had become a live fight over balancing environmental protections against certainty for Tasmania's salmon industry.
Hansard ↗Bill lapses at the end of Parliament
The proposal failed to complete Parliament, leaving the existing EPBCThe federal environment law this bill would amend. On this page, it is the law that sets the current rules for reconsidering approval decisions. reconsideration rules unchanged.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Referred to Committee (10/10/2024): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (11/12/2024)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
Critics said the bill would make it harder to revisit flawed federal environment approvals by cutting off community and expert reconsideration after 36 months, which they warned could weaken safeguards for waterways, endangered species and biodiversity. That case was raised mainly by Labor and the Greens in Senate debate, while supporters argued the change was about stopping open-ended uncertainty rather than changing the policy goal of environmental protection.
Opposition focused on weaker review rights and safeguards, not on a detailed alternative redesign of the reconsideration process.
Cuts off community and expert review
Opponents said the bill would restrict who can seek reconsideration of old environment approvals after 36 months, shifting that power largely to state and territory ministers and reducing community and expert oversight of questionable decisions.
Weaker environmental safeguards
Critics argued the bill would move the EPBCThe federal environment law this bill would amend. On this page, it is the law that sets the current rules for reconsidering approval decisions. framework in the wrong direction by making it harder to reopen approvals when new concerns arise, risking weaker protection for nature, waterways and threatened species.
Further sources
Votes
Other recorded votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
Senate
Defeated 30 to 31. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, Australia's Voice, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Greens.
This was a closure vote. It tested whether the chamber would end debate and move straight to the substantive second-reading decision on the bill.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Colbeck supports the bill, saying it would restore certainty by putting time limits on reconsidering environmental approvals and preventing open-ended challenges to past decisions.
Read in Hansard ↗Sarah Hanson-Young says the Greens will oppose the bill because it is a Coalition attack on environmental protection and expert advice, driven by the interests of big polluters and the salmon industry.
Read in Hansard ↗Tyrrell says she will support the bill because it gives local communities and ministers more control over reviews of past environmental decisions, which she argues will stop the salmon industry being left in limbo.
Read in Hansard ↗Grogan opposes the bill, saying it would restrict reconsideration of environmental decisions, weaken safeguards, and cut community and expert oversight.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“The committee found through its inquiry that this bill is unnecessary, misguided and counterproductive, basically, to Australia's environmental governance. The committee recommended that the bill not be passed.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 4 contributions · 3 support
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Richard Colbeck on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Colbeck supports the bill, saying it would restore certainty by putting time limits on reconsidering environmental approvals and preventing open-ended challenges to past decisions. He argues this will give industry, workers, investors, and communities more confidence in planning and investment.
“The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) Bill 2024 is about providing surety, ensuring balance in decision-making and instilling confidence in industry, in investment, and in the communities that benefit from strong and assured commerce.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Colbeck says the opposition will support the bill because it would give investors certainty that environmental approvals are final, instead of allowing old decisions to be reopened on the basis of a later complaint. He argues the government has created sovereign risk and should back jobs and projects across Tasmania and the country.
“This is a simple piece of legislation that can provide certainty for investors. Yes, there's a process that may come to fruition, perhaps in the next parliament, with respect to the EPBC Act more broadly. But, quite frankly, people who are putting up million, tens of millions or billions of dollars to invest in projects that support this sector, support industry and support jobs around the country should have the certainty of the decisions that are made by government. It is only reasonable that they do.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“So I say that if you're serious about protecting this industry, if you're serious about getting a good outcome and if you're serious about saying you support the salmon workers, then, this being the last sitting fortnight that we will have before this election—and I think that is the case—do something before the election to provide certainty for salmon workers. Do something to ensure that this industry can operate with certainty into the future. You cannot say you support this industry, which, frankly, science has proven is sustainable, is manageable and will create jobs while protecting the environment and protecting the future of the maugean skate—do something! If you don't want to support this bill in its current form, amend it or, I don't know, move a motion to protect this industry. Call on this environment minister, who has sat on her hands and now sat on departmental advice for nearly 18 months, and do something to protect these jobs and this community. It is what any good Tasmanian would do. That's what I am doing, along with Senator Colbeck, Senator Chandler and Senator Askew.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“If we are able to bring this bill on for vote today—and I certainly do hope that is something we can do—then I think that will go some way to providing the certainty that this industry needs. The government has not provided them with that certainty. The government has not listened to Tasmanian salmon workers. It has not listened to the concerns of the industry and what they are seeking to achieve. They just want certainty.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 oppose
“This bill is a bad bill for Australia and for our environment, and it should be rejected.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“But Labor wouldn't even progress their weak attempt to fix our weak environment laws, because they got their riding orders from the giant fossil fuel corporations who, remember, are making obscene profits and whose CEOs are making multimillion dollar salary packages by cooking our planet. What that means is they are making obscene profits and their CEOs are making multimillion dollar salary packages by engaging an action that will actually result in large numbers of people dying, even greater numbers of people being displaced from their homes, famine, war and a massive civilisational upheaval that humanity will face as we move through the decades of this century. Instead of actually taking action in the public interest, we have Labor kowtowing to the fossil fuel sector and refusing to progress reforms to fix our broken environment laws and the Liberals coming in here today moving to undermine our already pathetically weak environment laws.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“This bill puts the power back in the hands of the local communities where decisions have been made—not in the hands of someone who lives in another state. Any rational person also knows that leaving thousands of workers in limbo for years is a dark place to be. It's not right and it's not fair. When it comes to Macquarie Harbour, I stand with the workers and the West Coast community. I stand for finally getting a solution for an industry that spent three years waiting for the other shoe to drop. That's why I'm supporting this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debateThe stage in Parliament where members debate the main purpose of a bill. On this page, it shows the bill was discussed but did not pass.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Lapsed at end of Parliament
Lapsed at end of Parliament
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (11/12/2024)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (10 Oct 2024): Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee; Committee report (11 Dec 2024)
APH bill page notes
